Truth-Challenged
Anti-Pesticide
Researchers
Are LUNATIC-LIARS !
They LIE … and LIE
… and LIE … and LIE
Overview From An Independent Perspective
Anti-Pesticide Research Forecasts
Anti-Pesticide RESEARCHERS will say ANYTHING in order to get their PAY-OFFS, including FAKING DATA and POINTLESS AND BADLY DESIGNED RESEARCH.
Most Anti-Pesticide RESEARCH FORECASTS have been categorically WRONG and lead to nothing but NEEDLESS HYSTERIA.
There is a long and dismal history of Anti-Pesticide RESEARCH FORECASTS that were literally TOO BAD TO BE TRUE.
Because most Anti-Pesticide RESEARCHERS FAIL TO USE proper forecasting methods, there is no reason to expect their FORECASTS to be accurate, EXCEPT BY CHANCE.
Moreover, Anti-Pesticide RESEARCHERS will say ANYTHING in order to get their PAY-OFFS, including FAKING DATA and POINTLESS AND BADLY DESIGNED RESEARCH.
There is something HORRIBLY WRONG with a system where Government Officials CONSPIRE with Anti-Pesticide Lunatics and their Environmental-Terrorist-Organizations to DICTATE PUBLIC POLICY based upon Anti-Pesticide RESEARCH FORECASTS THAT ARE WRONG !
CONSPIRACIES have NOT just restricted to Pesticides, but also Agent Orange, Agriculture, Artificial Sweeteners, Cancer, DDT, Global Cooling, and Global Warming, Lawn Care, Organic Food, and Wind Power.
FORCE OF NATURE — ENVIRO-TERRORISTS UNMASKED — 2011 07 00 — AGENT ORANGE — ABSOLUTELY NOT — WEAPONS OF TERROR ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — ENVIRO-TERRORISTS UNMASKED — 2012 01 18 — AGRICULTURE — PESTICIDES ON FOOD ARE SAFE — AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH ( ACSH ) — CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — ENVIRO-TERRORISTS UNMASKED — 2009 08 19 — DEATH OF THE LAWN ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — ENVIRO-TERRORISTS UNMASKED — 2009 09 21 — GLOBAL WARMING — ARCTIC ICE — DDT — MALARIA ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — ENVIRO-TERRORISTS UNMASKED — 2009 07 29 — ORGANIC FOOD NOT MORE NUTRITIOUS — UNITED KINGDOM ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — ENVIRO-TERRORISTS UNMASKED — 2009 06 09 — TWISTED CONSPIRACY THEORIES ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — ENVIRO-TERRORISTS UNMASKED — 2010 08 28 — WIND POWER — NEARLY TWICE AS EXPENSIVE ( Report )
Overview From An Independent Perspective
UNMASKING Research Forecast Alarms About DDT and Cancer Epidemics ― Ehrlich
Needless Hysteria That DDT Will Lead To Our Doom ?!?! ―
[ … ] the oceans will die of DDT poisoning by 1979 [ … ] the U.S. life expectancy will drop to 42 years by 1980 due to cancer epidemics.
― Anti-Pesticide Lunatic-Alarm by Paul R. Ehrlich. Author of the 1968 book The Population Bomb. He expressed this light-hearted warning in 1969.
Overview From An Independent Perspective
UNMASKING Research Forecast Alarms About DDT and Birds ― Carson
Needless Hysteria That DDT Was Bad For Us ?!?! ―
[ … ] exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction.
― Anti-Pesticide Lunatic-Alarm by Miss Rachel Louise Carson. 1962.
The effect of DDT on birds like Bald Eagles is a MYTH !
During the sixteen-year period ( 1961 – 1977 ) representing much of the end of the « DDT years », a mere TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SIX Bald Eagles were found dead by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
The biologists who analyzed the dead eagles reported NO adverse effects caused by DDT or its metabolites.
The Anti-Pesticide Movement has often given the public the FALSE AND FRAUDULENT IMPRESSION that thousands of Bald Eagles died while DDT was in use.
As a matter of fact, early in the Twentieth Century, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of these birds were destroyed, but not because of DDT.
A WHOPPING ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN THOUSAND were calculatedly slaughtered by the State of Alaska between 1917 and 1942.
Government-sponsored exterminations seem to have killed more Bald Eagles than DDT allegedly did.
Everyone should maintain some perspective on this matter.
The alarms from Rachel Carson concerning DDT were NOT TRUE !
It is also a MYTH that the populations of predatory birds have recovered remarkably since the U.S. removal of DDT in 1972.
The alarms were BASED ON FORECASTS, but not ones from PROPER scientific forecasting methods.
Activists have made their alarming forecasts in three broad ways ―
● by using UNREALISTIC mathematical models, such as Malthus’
● by extrapolating the genuine effect of a large dose to a NEAR-ZERO DOSE
● by hypothesising that a WEAK EFFECT EXISTS and extrapolating that it will become important over time or over a large population
The third of these unscientific forecasting methods is the one most favoured by alarmists.
Because activists like Rachel Carson failed to use proper forecasting methods, there is NO REASON TO EXPECT THEIR ALARMING FORECASTS TO BE ACCURATE, except by chance.
The unscientific methods that activists like Carson used are BIASED TOWARDS MAKING ALARMING FORECASTS.
FORCE OF NATURE — ENVIRO-TERRORISTS UNMASKED — 2011 00 00 — A HISTORY OF SCIENTIFIC ALARMS ( Report )
CONVENTIONAL PRODUCT – DDT AND OUR WORLD OF POLITICIZED SCIENCE ( Web-Page )
Overview From An Independent Perspective
UNMASKING Research Forecast Alarms About Pesticides and Parkinson’s Disease ― Thiruchelvam
Needless Hysteria By Faking Data ―
According to Anti-Pesticide Neuro-Scientist Mona Thiruchelvam and her colleagues. pesticides have somehow been implicated as risk factors in Parkinson’s disease, a degenerative disorder of the central nervous system.
However, in 2012, the U.S. Office of Research Integrity found Thiruchelvam, a Federally-Funded Pesticides Researcher, GUILTY OF FAKING DATA.
At University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Anti-Pesticide Neuro-Scientist Mona Thiruchelvam had FAKED CELL COUNTS in two grant applications and a number of papers that claimed to show how the pesticides paraquat, maneb, and atrazine might somehow affect parts of the brain involved in Parkinson’s Disease.
When the case was passed to the U.S. Office of Research Integrity ( ORI ) for oversight review, agents used FORENSIC COMPUTING SOFTWARE to determine that MANY OF THE FILES, DESPITE HAVING DIFFERENT FILE NAMES AND DATES, WERE IDENTICAL IN CONTENT.
Consequently, Thiruchelvam agreed to RETRACT two of her papers.
Thiruchelvam LEFT University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, and is now BARRED FROM RECEIVING FEDERAL GRANTS FOR SEVEN YEARS.
Moreover, the whole line of experiments by Thiruchelvam may have been POINTLESS AND BADLY DESIGNED, without regard to data quality issues.
For example, Thiruchelvam’s injecting of paraquat directly into the fetal brain tissue of mice was unlikely to do their neural development much good, but that experiment NEVER PROVIDED ANY USEFUL INFORMATION about either pesticides or Parkinson’s Disease.
Despite being DISCREDITED AND GUILTY OF FAKING DATA, Thiruchelvam is a GRANT RECIPIENT of Michael J. Fox Foundation.
FORCE OF NATURE — ENVIRO-TERRORISTS UNMASKED — 2012 06 29 — PARKINSON’S — RESEARCHER GUILTY OF FAKING DATA ON PESTICIDES ( Report )
Pesticide Truths — 2012 11 23 — Mona Thiruchelvam: Michael J. Fox Foundation Grant Recipient ( Report )
Overview From An Independent Perspective
UNMASKING Needless Hysteria
In other industries, activists have also created NEEDLESS HYSTERIA with FORECASTS concerning Y2K Bug, Villejuif Leaflet, and Fan Deaths.
FORCE OF NATURE — ENVIRO-TERRORISTS UNMASKED — 2009 12 13 — NEEDLESS HYSTERIA — Y2K BUG & PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — ENVIRO-TERRORISTS UNMASKED — 2009 12 12 — NEEDLESS HYSTERIA — VILLEJUIF LEAFLET & PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — ENVIRO-TERRORISTS UNMASKED — 2009 08 07 — NEEDLESS HYSTERIA — FAN DEATHS & PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS ( Report )
NEEDLESS HYSTERIA has not only led to CONTROVERSIAL PROHIBITIONS against Pest Control Products, but also against PCBs, Plastic Bags, and Incandescent Bulbs.
FORCE OF NATURE — ENVIRO-TERRORISTS UNMASKED — 2011 02 24 — CONTROVERSIAL PROHIBITION — PCBS — USA — ST-BASILE ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — ENVIRO-TERRORISTS UNMASKED — 2010 08 15 — CONTROVERSIAL PROHIBITION — PLASTIC BAGS ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — ENVIRO-TERRORISTS UNMASKED — 2010 08 06 — CONTROVERSIAL PROHIBITION — INCANDESCENT BULBS ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — ENVIRO-TERRORISTS UNMASKED — 2010 03 21 — CONTROVERSIAL PROHIBITION — PLASTIC BAGS — ORIGINAL ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — ENVIRO-TERRORISTS UNMASKED — 2009 10 12 — CONTROVERSIAL PROHIBITION — INCANDESCENT BULBS — ORIGINAL ( Report )
How Activism Distorts
The Assessment
Of Health Risks
November 20th, 2012
Geoffrey C. Kabat
Forbes
Selected and Adapted Excerpts
Geoffrey C. Kabat is a Cancer Epidemiologist at Albert Einstein College Of Medicine and the author of Hyping Health Risks : Environmental Hazards In Daily Life And The Science Of Epidemiology.
How Activism Distorts The Assessment Of Health Risks
Conflation Of Advocacy With Science
CONFLATION occurs when the identities of two concepts, sharing some characteristics of one another, seem to be a single identity — the differences appear to become lost.
The CONFLATION OF ADVOCACY WITH SCIENCE has A HIGH COST ―
• It DISTRACTS THE PUBLIC by FOCUSING ATTENTION ON THREATS which, in many cases, turn out to be NON-EXISTENT
• It FORCES industry and government to DEVOTE LIMITED RESOURCES to issues where the return is likely to be NIL
• It DAMAGES THE CREDIBILITY OF SCIENCE, and particularly the discipline of epidemiology ― which society depends on to address serious issues
What these distortions and abuses make clear is THE NEED FOR A FIREWALL BETWEEN ADVOCACY AND SCIENCE.
We have to recognize that studies that carefully assess the effects of an exposure on health are extremely difficult to carry out correctly without the errors of bias and confounding and, thus, ARE OF VARIABLE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY.
We also need to recognize that scientists are human and CAN BE INFLUENCED BY PRESSURES AND AGENDAS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE.
This does not mean that we should be complacent about threats to health and the environment.
It does mean that the scientific evidence needs to be evaluated rigorously and dispassionately by people who do not feel they know the answer but whose sole goal is the accurate assessment of the evidence.
People who know the answer and have an agenda are believers and advocates, and they should have NO ROLE in assessing the science.
How Activism Distorts The Assessment Of Health Risks
Society’s Preoccupation With Hazards
Over recent decades there have been DRAMATIC INCREASES IN LIFE EXPECTANCY and IMPROVEMENTS IN HEALTH in the developed world.
It is a paradox that, as a society, we are OBSESSIVELY PREOCCUPIED with the SPECTER OF HAZARDS lurking in our environment and consumer products.
Many factors have contributed to this EVER-INCREASING CLIMATE OF FEAR, including ―
• the SUCCESS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT
• a DEEP-SEATED DISTRUST OF INDUSTRY
• the PUBLIC’S INSATIABLE APPETITE FOR STORIES RELATED TO HEALTH, which the media duly cater to
• and ― last but not least ― the STRIKING EXPANSION OF THE FIELDS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES and their burgeoning literature
How Activism Distorts The Assessment Of Health Risks
False Positives In Epidemiology
Epidemiologists have long been aware of the baleful effects of CONTRADICTORY FINDINGS reported in the media, which CONFUSE THE PUBLIC about what threats to health are worth worrying about.
However, only recently have prominent epidemiologists begun to critically examine their own discipline and to speak out about the FALSE POSITIVES ― initial findings that LATER PROVE TO BE WRONG.
FALSE POSITIVES are latched onto by the media, the public, advocacy groups, and regulatory agencies.
How Activism Distorts The Assessment Of Health Risks
Most Research Findings Are False
In 2005, the epidemiologist John Ioannidis published a paper entitled WHY MOST RESEARCH FINDINGS ARE FALSE.
Among the factors contributing to MOST RESEARCH FINDINGS ARE FALSE, Ioannidis cited …
• METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
• RESEARCHERS’ DESIRE FOR THEIR RESULTS TO BE MEANINGFUL
• THE STRONG MOTIVATION OF PROFESSIONAL ADVANCEMENT
How Activism Distorts The Assessment Of Health Risks
International Agency For Research On Cancer
International Agency For Research On Cancer ( IARC ) is renowned for producing ASSESSMENTS OF CARCINOGENS.
Its reports were widely regarded as the most authoritative assessments available on cancer risks.
Since the early 1970’s, International Agency For Research On Cancer, a part of the World Health Organization, has produced assessments of carcinogenic hazards for use by researchers and regulators.
But it appears that some of the agency’s evaluations may OVERSTATE the risks, for reasons that tell us a great deal about the science and politics of risk assessment.
Since only a SMALL NUMBER of IARC’s assessments have been REVIEWED BY INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS, it remains to be seen to what extent the ranking of other agents is affected by FALSE POSITIVES.
How Activism Distorts The Assessment Of Health Risks
IARC Biased and Prejudiced
In the past several years, International Agency For Research On Cancer ( IARC ) has come under scrutiny for ALLOWING ITS ASSESSMENTS TO BE COLORED BY A BIAS TOWARD POSITIVE RESULTS and TO BE SWAYED BY ADVOCACY IN THE WIDER SOCIETY.
However, a number of scientists with direct experience with IARC have felt compelled to DISSOCIATE THEMSELVES from the agency’s approach to evaluating carcinogenic hazards.
Their critique goes to the heart of the agency’s epistemology and its deliberative process.
How Activism Distorts The Assessment Of Health Risks
IARC Classification
International Agency For Research On Cancer ( IARC ) classifies the agents it evaluates into one of the following categories ―
Category 1 ― carcinogenic to humans
Category 2A — probably carcinogenic to humans
Category 2B — possibly carcinogenic to humans
Category 3 ― not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity in humans
Category 4 ― probably not carcinogenic to humans
However, there is reason to believe that at least two other exposures classified by the agency as group 1 carcinogens are OPEN TO QUESTION ― namely, DIESEL EXHAUST and environmental TOBACCO SMOKE.
How Activism Distorts The Assessment Of Health Risks
IARC Epidemiologic Studies
In its evaluation, International Agency For Research On Cancer ( IARC ) considers experimental evidence of carcinogenicity but GIVES PRIORITY TO HUMAN EPIDEMIOLOGIC EVIDENCE.
But ― as pointed out by Ioannidis and others ― EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES ARE SUBJECT TO HIGH RATES OF FALSE POSITIVES.
When IARC’s classification of individual agents is examined critically, it appears that the agency’s ratings may be SYSTEMATICALLY INFLATED.
How Activism Distorts The Assessment Of Health Risks
IARC Classification Of Formaldehyde
For example, according to the critics, the classification of FORMALDEHYDE in group 1 [ carcinogenic to humans ] appears to be « particularly problematic », being based primarily on two positive studies, one of which has SERIOUS METHODOLOGICAL FLAWS, while the other shows INCONSISTENT RESULTS.
How Activism Distorts The Assessment Of Health Risks
IARC Classification Of Coffee and DDT
Among the agents classed in Group 2B [ possibly carcinogenic to humans ] are COFFEE and DDT, both of which have been extensively studied, and found NOT BE LINKED TO CANCER.
How Activism Distorts The Assessment Of Health Risks
Problems With The IARC Process
FIRST PROBLEM WITH THE IARC PROCESS ―
A major problem with the IARC process is that it makes it ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE to assign an agent to category 4 ― probably not carcinogenic.
Of the roughly one thousand agents evaluated by the agency, exactly ONE is in category 4 ― probably not carcinogenic.
SECOND PROBLEM WITH THE IARC PROCESS —
One that REINFORCES THE CLASSIFICATION PROBLEM.
Some of the WORKING GROUPS convened to assess a particular agent have INCLUDED SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE CARRIED OUT STUDIES ON THE AGENT UNDER EVALUATION.
It is fanciful to think that scientists who HAVE A VITAL STAKE in a particular question can evaluate the evidence, including their own studies, dispassionately.
THIRD PROBLEM WITH THE IARC PROCESS ―
IARC REACHES ITS ASSESSMENTS BY CONSENSUS.
But this can mean that those who are more forceful and persuasive may influence the group decision-making process.
In addition, CONSENSUS IMPLIES A PHILOSOPHIC STANCE WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE.
How Activism Distorts The Assessment Of Health Risks
IARC Classification Of Cellular Phones
In 2011, International Agency For Research On Cancer ( IARC ) classified Cell Phone use as « possibly carcinogenic », when the agency’s own review showed that the overall evidence overwhelmingly indicated that Cell Phone use was NOT ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED CANCER.
One has to ask what « possibly carcinogenic » means, if extensive evidence in humans and animals points to no threat.
All three Problems With The IARC Process came together in IARC’s assessment of Cell Phones ―
FIRST PROBLEM WITH THE IARC PROCESS IN ASSESSING CELL PHONES ―
UNDUE EMPHASIS ON A SMALL NUMBER OF POSITIVE EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES from a single group, when the much larger body of studies indicated no elevated risk.
SECOND PROBLEM WITH THE IARC PROCESS IN ASSESSING CELL PHONES ―
THE IMPROPER INFLUENCE OF AN ACTIVIST RESEARCHER ( the lead author of the anomalous positive studies ) on the deliberations of the working group; and, finally,
THIRD PROBLEM WITH THE IARC PROCESS IN ASSESSING CELL PHONES ―
A TILT TOWARD THE « PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE ».
THE MYTH OF CANCER – MYTH-BUSTING ( Web-Page )
THE MYTH OF CANCER – CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY – NO DIRECT PROOF PESTICIDES CAUSE CANCER ( Web-Page )
How Activism Distorts The Assessment Of Health Risks
Precautionary Principle
The Precautionary Principle states that, if there is uncertainty regarding the effects of exposure to an agent, the burden of proof that exposure does not cause harm falls on those who utilize the agent.
While this formulation may sound reasonable, in actuality IT HAS NOTHING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ASSESSMENT OF RISKS ―
• THERE ARE ALWAYS UNCERTAINTIES, and
• IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PROVE THE ABSENCE OF RISK
Furthermore, in practice invocation of the Precautionary Principle ―
• focuses attention solely on the possibility of harm
• often ignores information about the dose to which people are exposed
• avoiding consideration of benefits of the agent in question, and whether safer substitutes are available
• giving greater weight to studies that appear to indicate a hazard, even when these studies may be of poorer quality
For all its self-justifying claims, the Precautionary Principle SEEKS TO DENY A CENTRAL FACT ―
THERE IS NO WAY TO AVOID RISK IN LIFE
All we can do is to try to use available knowledge to distinguish between ―
• Those risks that are LARGE AND WELL-ESTABLISHED
• Those risks that are PROBABLE
• Those risks that available evidence suggests are TRIVIAL OR NON-EXISTENT
Contamination of what is billed as science-based risk assessment by activist researchers and by the Precautionary Principle has become a PERVASIVE PROBLEM.
By emphasizing precaution, advocates can FAVOR THOSE STUDIES THAT APPEAR TO SHOW A HAZARD AND APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC, always relying on the argument that anyone who questions the interpretation of the evidence must be a shill of industry.
PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS – PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE – INVALIDATED WEAPON OF COERCION ( Web-Page )
How Activism Distorts The Assessment Of Health Risks
California’s Air Resources Board ( CARB )
Given IARC’s prestige and authority, its assessments carry enormous weight with regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) and California’s Air Resources Board ( CARB ).
But, of course, these agencies are also subject to pressures from Non-Governmental Organizations ( NGOs ) and advocacy groups [ a.k.a. Environmental-Terrorist Organizations ] in their own right.
To give just one example, California’s Air Resources Board ( CARB ) has recently proposed major restrictions to reduce the levels of Fine Particulate Matter ( PM2.5 ) in the state.
However, the IARC’s assessment AVOIDS ACKNOWLEDGING EXTENSIVE EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES that consistently show that, in recent decades, Fine Particulate Matter ( PM2.5 ) levels are NOT ASSOCIATED WITH TOTAL MORTALITY IN CALIFORNIA.
NORAHG is the National Organization Responding Against HUJE that seek to harm the Green space industry.
Communities and businesses are being HARMED by PROHIBITIONS against the use of pest control products in the Urban Landscape.
NORAHG morally represents the VAST SILENT MAJORITY of people associated with turf and ornamental plant maintenance who are OPPOSED to Anti Pesticide PROHIBITION and the CLOSURE or ABANDONMENT of green spaces under the RIDICULOUS PRETEXT of somehow « saving » the environment.
NORAHG is a NATIONAL NON PROFIT NON PARTISAN organization that does not accept money from corporations or governments or trade associations, and represents NO VESTED INTERESTS WHATSOEVER.
NORAHG is dedicated to reporting the work of RESPECTED and HIGHLY RATED EXPERTS who promote ENVIRONMENTAL REALISM and PESTICIDE TRUTHS.
NORAHG pledges to deliver reports that are worthy of peoples’ time and of peoples’ concern, reports that might ordinarily never have breached the parapet.
NORAHG was the brainchild of William H. Gathercole and his colleagues in 1991. Mr. Gathercole is now retired, although his name continues to appear as founder.
For the original copy of this Force Of Nature Report, go to the following link …
Here are previous reports about ENVIRO-TERRORISTS UNMASKED, just in case you missed them …
ENVIRO-TERRORISTS UNMASKED – WRONG FOR OVER 50 YEARS ! ( Web-Page )
AGENT ORANGE – AGRICULTURE – ANTI-PESTICIDE LUNATICS – CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY – CONTROVERSIAL PROHIBITIONS – COTTAM GHOST-WRITERS – DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION – ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE – EQUITERRE – GLOBAL WARMING – HEALTH-CARE-WORKERS – LYING SACKS OF CWAP – NEEDLESS HYSTERIA – ORGANIC FOOD – PeTA – TWISTED CONSPIRACY THEORIES – U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL TERRORISM – WIND POWER
NORAHG has archived more information on The Pesticide Truths Web-Site …
THE PESTICIDE TRUTHS WEB-SITE
PESTICIDE BANS ARE A FARCE ( Report )
REAL TRENDS AGAINST PESTICIDE BANS ( Web-Page )
CARNAGE LEADING TO GARBAGE DUMP GREEN SPACES – WHO WANTS TO LIVE IN #@!!% PEST-INFESTED GARBAGE DUMPS ?!?! ( Web-Page )
CARNAGE LEADING TO GARBAGE DUMP GREEN SPACES ( Photo Gallery )
GOLF DESTRUCTION – GOLF IS NEXT ( Web-Page )
WHITE PAPER – OFFICIALS ARE THINKING TWICE BEFORE BANNING PESTICIDES ( Report )
THE COMPLETE LIBRARY OF REPORTS & REFERENCES ( Web-Page )
PESTICIDE TRUTHS REPORTS ( Web-Page )
